 |
|
Dalit welfare Politics of freebies |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Nagaland’s moves
When N-deal is taken to court
Names tell many things
Little to gain from the Commonwealth Time for ‘smart power’ Delhi Durbar
|
Dalit welfare ALTHOUGH Dalits in India lag on almost all human development parameters, their biggest handicap is the lack of adequate education and training. Leave alone higher education, there are many who do not even go beyond matriculation. According to one estimate, out of one lakh students who join school every year, as many as 70 per cent drop out before Class X. To remedy the situation, Haryana Chief Minister Bhupinder Singh Hooda has come out with an ambitious scheme which will give them monetary incentive while in school. The Rs 260-crore scheme will provide every SC student Rs 100 per month when he enrolls in Class I (Rs 150 in the case of girls). This stipend will keep on increasing as he or she moves on to a higher class. The incentive will, hopefully, check the sharp dropout rate. However, just the stipend will not complete the government’s responsibility. It will also have to ensure that there are enough schools for them. Most of them go to downmarket government schools and the standard of coaching in many of them is nothing to write home about. The Dalits’ lot will improve along with the general improvement in the standard of education and living. The Mukhyamantri Dalit Chhatra Shiksha Yojana was not the only scheme announced at the “Dalit Samman Rally” in Karnal on Sunday. There were many more aggregating to Rs 1,000 crore which aim to provide them infrastructure like drinking water supply, shelter, power and pucca streets. They urgently need all such help. Politically, the gifts showered on the Dalits make a lot of sense for the ruling Congress. The BSP has been trying to make inroads into Haryana and the bonanza is a pragmatic ploy to tell the Dalits that they are better off with the Congress. The Chief Minister’s assertion that blue, green and yellow flags were irrelevant in Haryana was a snub to parties like the BSP, the Indian National Lok Dal and Mr Bhajan Lal’s newly floated Haryana Janhit Congress (BL). In fact, by indirectly making the Dalit rally a bigger draw than the recent Bhajan lal show in Rohtak, the Chief Minister has sent a powerful message to his rivals. |
|
Politics of freebies AFTER pushing itself to the brink of bankruptcy, the Punjab government seems to have realised the folly of giving freebies by bleeding the exchequer. So as a first baby step to collect some cash, the government has decided to impose luxury tax on hotels and marriage palaces. More significantly, the Chief Minister is having second thoughts on giving free power and water to farmers. This is welcome. This winter Punjab is in for power cuts and the state electricity board has no money to buy power. Its losses have risen from Rs 1,923 crore last year to Rs 2,004 crore this year. The board buys power at exorbitant rates -- up to Rs 6 a unit -- and supplies it free to a large section of the consumers. The government, itself in dire straits, has not yet compensated the board for the losses. Lack of power hurts agricultural growth, industrial activity and keeps off fresh investment. There is a need to enhance the power generation capacity. That requires huge money. Free power leads to its wastage and an inefficient use of ground water. Poor farmers suffer the maximum as the water table sinks and tubewells have to be reinstalled. Giving free power is not only bad economics but also bad politics. By subsidising power for one section, the government raises its cost for others. When the power tariff was hiked for the urban consumers recently, it had to be rolled back under BJP pressure. Reports suggest the state government plans to reintroduce octroi. That octroi is a roadblock and causes delays is well known. Its reintroduction will be a regressive step. The government need not go in for fresh taxes. Instead, it should check widespread tax evasion, rightsize the government, cut administrative expenditure, privatise public sector units and scrap unnecessary VIP security. Power reforms, meanwhile, should not wait. If the government is ready is face the reality, the time for it is now. |
|
Nagaland’s moves THE decade-long ceasefire with the Isak/Muivah faction of the National Socialist Council of Nagaland (NSCN) has yielded a measure of peace and stability in this northeastern state, particularly in comparison with more trouble-prone states like Assam and Manipur. It is intriguing, therefore, that Nagaland Chief Minister Neiphiu Rio has reportedly asked for a ‘go-slow’ against a rival militant faction of the NSCN, the Kaplang group, which has been taking sanctuary in neighbouring Myanmar. Apparently, Mr Rio has asked the Ministry of External Affairs to request the military junta to hold back on operations against the group. Myanmar is considered a valuable Indian ally in keeping the Northeast militant groups in check. While the details are not clear, the entire effort may be predicated on getting the Kaplang faction, too, onto a moderate course, where violence is abjured. Of course, the NSCN’s leaders, including Muivah, have periodically indulged in some sabre-rattling, with some recent extensions of the ceasefire being restricted to six months, rather than a year. There is continued talk of “sovereignty” and “a greater Nagalim” including Naga-speaking areas of not just other northeastern states like Manipur, but Myanmar as well. Internecine clashes with the Kaplang group have been going on. While Mr Rio’s request is apparently linked to his Naga constituency, both at home and in Myanmar, other states may not look kindly upon his request. The Nagas and the Manipuri Meities have frequently been at arms, and a divide between the “hill people” and the “valley people” has persisted. While the ceasefire has definitely benefited Nagaland, in contrast to continued violence in Assam and Manipur, it is important for the Centre to maintain a holistic and comprehensive approach to all northeastern issues. But anyone willing to shed violence should be given a welcoming hand into the mainstream. |
|
All men that are ruined are ruined on the side of their natural propensities. — Edmund Burke
|
When N-deal is taken to court
The
question has become most relevant after the recent nuclear deal between the Government of India and the US since the government and its spokesman are taking the stand that the executive has the power to enter into deals, treaties and agreements with foreign governments and organisations, without the approval of and without even reference to the legislature and the people. The government’s contention, in other words, is that it has inherent powers to administer the country’s affairs with foreign governments and bodies which are independent of the legislature, the people and the Constitution. While the government may, therefore, be responsible to the people and the legislature for internal administration, the external administration is beyond its reach and the government is not responsible to them for the same. In other words, the Constitution, the rule of law and democracy are all confined to the internal affairs and do not extend to foreign dealings. We have, therefore, only a partial democracy in this country confined to internal governance, and external dealings, even if they are concerned with internal governance (and all of them are, directly or indirectly), are beyond the rule of law, and fall within the realm of the extra-constitutional autocratic powers of the executive. The country has to be administered both in respect of its internal and external affairs. Both are concerned with the well-being of the people and affect them in a big or small way, depending on the subject matter. In a democratic country, therefore, the people must have control over both, and should have a say in how both are administered. Democracy is indivisible, and though the democratic power may be decentralised and distributed among different institutions of society, no part of it can be alienated in favour of any institution so as to be impervious and unaccountable to the people. Democracy by its very nature is antithetical to the autocratic exercise of power by any of its institutions, and more so by any of its governing arms, be it the legislature, the executive or the judiciary. The rule of law is the foundation of democracy. It is the enacted law and not the arbitrary, discretionary, exigent or ad hoc exercise of power by an individual or a group of individuals which governs the affairs of the democratic country, and even where emergency or exigency impels an urgent action, it has to be later sanctioned by a legislative measure as soon as possible. Every executive act has to be sanctioned by law and hence, in a democracy, there is no scope for any action by an institution, whether executive or other, which is not supported by law. The moment any institution makes a claim to act without the authority of law, on any subject whatsoever, it transgresses its democratic limit. It seeks the exercise of autocratic powers. The powers of the three wings of our state — the executive, the legislature and the judiciary — are defined by the Constitution. They cannot exceed them. The executive powers are co-extensive with the legislative powers. In other words, the executive can exercise powers only on those subjects on which the legislature can make laws, and the executive cannot act unless there is a law made by the legislature and except within the framework of such law. That is why when the legislature is not in session, and there is an urgent need for the executive to act, an ordinance has to be issued which is to be placed before the legislature within six weeks of its reassembly. The issuance of the ordinance is itself a legislative act of the President or the Governor, as the case may be. Some argue that notwithstanding democracy and the Constitution, the executive has a reservoir of autocratic extra-constitutional power which it can use whenever necessary and on its own without pre-or-post-reference to the legislature. This quaint reasoning has obviously its origin in the old mindset tuned to the prodemocratic authoritative regime. It is only an absolutist ruler who can invoke such “divine” powers, not supported by law. The democratic regime is a rule of law, and not a rule of an individual will or arbitrariness. Every act has to be supported by law either pre-enacted or, in urgent cases, post-enacted. To argue that notwithstanding the transition from authoritarianism to democracy and the adoption of the Constitution, the remnants of the historic powers of the ruler still govern the polity, is to plead for extra-constitutional and undemocratic powers in favour of the executive. It is this misconception about the basis of democracy which has led some also to put forward a perverse contention that since there is no provision in the Constitution to prevent the executive from exercising the extra-constitutional powers, neither the legislature nor the citizens can question its exercise. The proper question to be asked in a constitutional democracy is whether the action of the executive is supported by any law. The mere fact that the executive has been using such extra-constitutional power all along is no argument to support its validity. It need not be emphasised that an illegal practice, however long, does not make it legal. It was embarrassing to read a news report that when on this very ground a lawyer has challenged in the Supreme Court the nuclear deal the highest tribunal of the land dismissed the plea, refusing to give any reasons. The report also pointed out that the court, in the course of the proceedings, observed that in the past such treaties and agreements were entered into. The court further observed that it was the discretion of the court whether to admit the plea or not. If the news report is correct, the court order is not only unfortunate but also amounts to abdicating its duty. What was challenged before the court was the autocratic exercise of the power by the executive. If the highest court refuse to discharge its duty and finds a short-cut to deal with constitutional matters, the citizens will be left with the only alternative — extra-legal action. What form it will take is a matter of guess.n The writer, a retired Supreme Court judge, is a former Chairman of the Press Council of India
|
Names tell many things
Most of the times, names of persons are not only indicative of their socio-religious background, but also tell a lot about the time and era when they were born. It seems people in the pre-Independence days were more fascinated about the geography of the country. Names were derived from cities starting from the Khyber pass as Pishori Lal, Lahori Ram, Hardwari Lal, Ayodhya Prakash and Banarsi Das. Down the map, places like Dwarka, Gaya, Mallikarjun, Rameshwaram and even the Kamrup hills were adopted as the first names by many people. The extraordinary nationalistic fervour of freedom movement gave us our Swadesh Kumars and Azad Singhs. Our love for sacred rivers is also legendary. If ladies had names like Jamuna, Gomti and Godavari, men too were Saryoo Prasads and Ganga Rams. I fail to understand why the rivers of Punjab were not shown this reverence as we didn’t have names like Satluj Kumar or Jehlum Singh. Punjabis preferred to put valour in their names as we can find many of Sher Singhs and Bahadur Chands and the lure of colonels and generals gave us our Karnail Singhs and Jarnail Singhs. In the pre-Partition era when Urdu was the dominant language, names like Ulfat Rai, Husn Lal, Naseeb Chand, Mushtaq Rai and Huqam Singh were quite common. Many decades later the elite class again started choosing Urdu names like Sahil, Khushboo and Seerat. But with time, many beautiful names with good meaning have vanished. Now we listen about only one Mayawati and there are no takers for names like Bimla, Kanta, Saroj and Khushi Ram. Nathu Ram as a name also fell out of favour after 1948 for obvious reasons. Names were chosen on superstitious notes also. Maghi Ram and Basakha Singh were born on the first day of particular Indian months and Poorn Chands on the full moon day. Just to ward off evil sight, a male child was named as Ruldu Ram. Hoping to add a male progeny, the girl child was named Veeranvali. If two or three girls were born in succession the younger one was named as Tripta and Mangat Rams and Tarsem Lals were those who came into this world after many years of the marriage of their parents. I am equally amused to find some names which were just opposite the personality of a person. I know an illiterate man who is Vidyasagar and have also seen a Shanti Devi and Madhu as quarrelsome and ill-tongued ladies. One of my skeleton-thin school friend was Bhim Singh and my late father-in-law, a very fair complexioned Dogra Pandit, was Shyam Lal. Famous writer Munshi Prem Chand lived his life in penury, but was originally named as Dhanpat Rai. Once in Delhi, I had met a super-rich man and his name was Garib Das. Though naming a child is an important ritual, but I remember an instance where a friend of mine renamed his new middle-aged domestic helper as Sachin. It was typically indicative of what havoc same names can create. Originally Amarnath, the poor fellow shared his name with my friend’s father and the ladies of the house refused to pronounce
it.
|
Little to gain from the Commonwealth
An
able and experienced candidate with the right political connections, the merit of geographical rotation, an efficient campaign orchestrated by Foreign Secretary Shiv Shankar Menon, a weak opposition, the absence of veto – these were the ingredients of the recipe for the success of Kamalesh Sharma as the first Asian Secretary General of the Commonwealth in Kampala. The success was commendable both politically for India and professionally for the Indian Foreign Service. But the tendency to portray it as a magnificent victory and India’s arrival on the world scene, heralding future victories in crucial elections is a grave error. Each election has its own dynamism and battles ahead will remain as hazardous as they have always been. It is also unfair to compare this victory with other efforts in the past. Kamalesh Sharma is indeed a suave, articulate and well-read diplomat with many achievements to his credit. He has not been guilty of any known political misjudgments. His postings to Geneva, Berlin and New York, his appointment as an Under-Secretary General of the UN, soon after his term in New York and his subsequent return to the Government as the High commissioner to the UK cannot but be attributed to his right political connections. The same connections hurt him in a different dispensation when he was moved prematurely out of Geneva amidst rumours that he made a major mistake in a property deal. Even his nomination as the Indian candidate for the Commonwealth post was not without challenge by other equally capable officers. The campaign was impeccable as it was low-key, without too much publicity about the candidate’s own travels and those of Ministers and others. But the contacts in high places in the Commonwealth countries were fully utilised and the Government made it known that it attached great importance to the candidature. Apparently, a High Commissioner in Delhi was taken to task by the concerned Joint Secretary for sending mixed signals about his country’s position. In Kampala itself, while the other candidates, Foreign Minister Frendo of Malta and the Chairman of the Commonwealth Business Council, Mohan Kaul were seen everywhere because of their roles in the Business Forum, Sharma did not even put in an appearance at the Forum. He and his colleagues were quietly working on delegations, which had arrived for the Ministerial segment of the summit. The Indian High Commissioner to Uganda was confident of victory days in advance of the election. Frendo and Kaul are impressive people, but Malta, as a European nation, comes from the same geographical group as New Zealand, which provided the last Secretary General. As the founder of the New Commonwealth, India’s claim for the post was well recognized. Moreover, no single country, not even the UK, could have vetoed any candidate. It was the ambiguous position of the UK and others that led to the failure of India’s tentative effort to secure the post for Jagat Mehta in Lusaka in 1979. In the present case, India obviously had the support of the big boys in the Commonwealth, the UK, Canada and Australia, not to speak of the Africans. President Museveni of Uganda, the Chairman, made no secret of his support to India. The US and China, which blocked India in the UN, are not in the Commonwealth. Pakistan would have tried to block India, but the elections came at a time when Pakistan was on a weak wicket in the Commonwealth. To compare the Commonwealth election to the recent election of the UN Secretary General is to mix oranges and apples. For one thing, though the Commonwealth has one fourth of the members of the UN, it does not have even one fourth of the prestige of the global organization. With the elimination of colonialism and apartheid, the Commonwealth is groping in the dark for an agenda, which suits its genius. It poaches on the UN turf and duplicates resolutions that tend to divide the Commonwealth. What is common about the wealth of the members of the Commonwealth? Asked Musaveni. Some people thought CHOGM stood for “Chaps on Holiday On Government Money”! In the case of the UN, it was known right from the beginning that neither the US nor China will permit an Indian to be elected the Secretary General of the UN. But since Asia’s turn to provide a Secretary General comes only once in Sixty years or so, it would have been unconscionable for India not to have a candidate, particularly when we had a candidate with impeccable credentials. In any event, Shashi Tharoor was a close second to Ban Ki Moon and he overtook several candidates, who were in the field long before him. Tharoor did us proud. The Commonwealth victory does not mean that we can win other electoral battles in the future, whether it is for a non-permanent seat in the Security Council or for getting the Security Council expanded. I remember India contesting for three different positions in the UN during one General Assembly session and ending up with vastly different scores in each. If it is an economic or social body, India gets a large number of votes, as the UN cannot think of such bodies without India. The last elections to the Human Rights Council saw India getting the largest number of votes polled by any country. But in political bodies, India does not get the same recognition as different interest groups have different perceptions of India. The expansion of permanent members is a distant dream and even winning a non-permanent seat is hard in the new context. There was a time when India got elected every seven years or so. But the debate on expansion brought out the fact that a vast majority of member countries had not served on the Council even once, while some countries had served on it several times already. To challenge a small country, which aspires to be on the Council for the first or second time is to incur the wrath of a majority. India will have to think hard before offering to take on a small country. Expansion of the permanent membership is an aspiration of the majority in the UN, but the majority cannot agree to specific names. The consensus that had developed around Japan and Germany was sabotaged mainly by us and now there is no single country, which can claim unanimous support. India has to acquire more economic clout, normalise relations with neighbours and have a credible nuclear policy before we can become a permanent member. How long it will take us to reach these benchmarks is any body’s guess. No amount of trade unionism is going to get us the kind of recognition we seek. The US, with all the protestations about making India a great power, is yet to acknowledge India’s credentials to be in APEC, not to speak of permanent membership. The western press praises the rise of India, but does not concede the rising power its due rewards. Kamalesh Sharma will preside over a vast bureaucracy, make wonderful speeches and try to frame a Commonwealth agenda, which will be acceptable to all. He will condemn military coups even as he breaks bread with dictators, who have managed to become civilian. It will not be long before Parvez Musharraf too returns to its fold, hailing Pakistan as a democracy. India has nothing to gain from the Commonwealth. Nor can an Indian Secretary General give India a higher profile. But it will be good to read history books, which will describe him as the first Asian to head the Commonwealth, who may even be knighted. Hail Sir Kamalesh!
|
|
Time for ‘smart power’ The
world is dissatisfied with American leadership. Shocked and frightened after 9/11, the US put forward an angry face to the globe, not one that reflected the more traditional American values of hope and optimism, tolerance and opportunity. This fearful approach has hurt the United States’ ability to bring allies to its cause, but it is not too late to change. The nation should embrace a smarter strategy that blends its “hard” and “soft” power – the ability to attract and persuade, as well as the ability to use economic and military might. Whether it is ending the crisis in Pakistan, winning the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, deterring Iran’s and North Korea’s nuclear ambitions, managing China’s rise or improving the lives of those left behind by globalization, the United States needs a broader, more balanced approach. Since 9/11, the war on terrorism has shaped this isolating outlook, becoming the central focus of U.S. engagement with the world. The threat from terrorists with global reach is likely to be with us for decades. But unless they have weapons of mass destruction, groups such as al-Qaida pose no existential threat to the United States – unlike our old foes Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. In fact, al-Qaida and its ilk hope to defeat us by using our own strength against us. They hope we will blunder, overreact and turn world opinion against us. This is a deliberately set trap, and one whose grave strategic consequences extend far beyond the costs this nation would suffer from any small-scale terrorist attack, no matter how individually tragic and collectively painful. We cannot return to a nearsighted pre-9/11 mindset that underestimated the al-Qaida threat, but neither can we remain stuck in a narrow post-9/11 mindset that alienates much of the world. More broadly, when our words do not match our actions, we demean our character and moral standing. We cannot lecture others about democracy while we back dictators. We cannot denounce torture and waterboarding in other countries and condone it at home. We cannot allow Cuba’s Guantanamo Bay or Iraq’s Abu Ghraib to become the symbols of American power. The United States has long been the big kid on the block, and it will probably remain so for years to come. But its staying power has a great deal to do with whether it is perceived as a bully or a friend. States and non-state actors can better address today’s challenges when they can draw in allies; those who alienate potential friends stand at greater risk. The past six years have demonstrated that hard power alone cannot secure the nation’s long-term goals. The U.S. military remains the best in the world, even after having been worn down from years of war. We will have to invest in people and materiel to maintain current levels of readiness; as a percentage of gross domestic product, U.S. defence spending is actually well below Cold War levels. But an extra dollar spent on hard power will not necessarily bring an extra dollar’s worth of security. In a changing world, the United States should become a smarter power by once again investing in the global good – by providing things that people and governments want but cannot attain without U.S. leadership. By complementing U.S. military and economic strength with greater investments in soft power, Washington can build the framework to tackle tough global challenges. We call this smart power. Smart power is not about getting the world to like us. It is about developing a strategy that balances our hard (coercive) power with our soft (attractive) power. The United States used its soft power to rebuild Europe and Japan and to establish the norms and institutions that became the core of the international order for the past half-century. The Cold War ended under a barrage of hammers on the Berlin Wall rather than a barrage of artillery across the Fulda Gap precisely because of this integrated approach. Throughout the Cold War, the United States projected an image of vast technical competence: We sent humans to the moon and helped eradicate smallpox. Later, the nation’s military victories in Kuwait in 1991 and Kosovo in 1999 demonstrated its towering technical proficiency. But today, the United States projects a very different image. Today, many are questioning our basic competence. Consider the current crisis in Pakistan. The United States might be in a better position today had it not walked away from Pakistan in the 1990s and had it broadened its engagement beyond military cooperation with and support of Gen. Pervez Musharraf over the past six years, as the 9/11 commission suggested. Instead, U.S. favorability ratings are below 20 percent in Pakistan. The U.S.-led war on terrorism is widely seen by Pakistanis as a war on Islam, and American support now tarnishes Pakistani leaders who share U.S. objectives. And yet, for a brief period in late 2005 and early 2006, U.S. favorability ratings approached 50 percent in Pakistan. Why? Because of the U.S. military’s effective and principled response to the October 2005 earthquake there, the largest and longest relief effort in U.S. military history. It showed Pakistanis U.S. commitment and friendship and provided an important source of smart power. It demonstrated, however briefly, that America’s standing in the world can indeed be restored. ————— Armitage was US deputy secretary of state from 2001 to 2005. Nye, a former US assistant secretary of defence, teaches political science at Harvard By arrangement with
LA Times-Washington Post |
|
Delhi Durbar When the BCCI recently charged Bollywood badshah Shahrukh Khan of showing up at cricket matches only to promote his latest film “Om Shanti Om”, information and broadcasting minister Priyaranjan Dasmunsi, who also heads the Indian Football Federation, was quick to seize the opportunity. The minister promptly persuaded the miffed superstar to switch loyalties to football instead. Shahrukh was equally quick to oblige Dasmunsi and the star is now expected to show up at this season’s football league matches being held in Kolkata. Not just Shahrukh, the football-crazy fans of Kolkata will also get an opportunity to see another Bollywood favourite, John Abraham, also a special guest of the minister, who is making all-out efforts to popularise football by introducing a touch a glamour to the game.
Pro-US views Even at 80-plus, well-known lawyer and Rajya Sabha member Ram Jethmalani remains as feisty as ever. Every time he gets up to speak in the Upper House, he never fails to provoke. This is exactly what happened last week during the debate on the Indo-US nuclear deal. Everybody heard Jethmalani in patience as he held forth at length on the merits of the deal but all hell broke loose when the eminent lawyer proclaimed that he was an abashed admirer of the United States. Left members, led by Brinda Karat, and Samajwadi Party leader Amar Singh, were promptly up in arms. They protested that Jethmalani had exceeded his time-limit while others like him were asked to rush through their presentations. This seemingly minor issue disrupted proceedings for at least an hour as the Marxists and their Samajwadi friends were determined that Jethmalani be denied the opportunity to place his pro-US views on record. Needless to say, Jethmalani stood his ground.
Mast show When the Bangladeshi singer Runa Laila of the “Damadam mast kalandar” fame performed in Delhi recently after a gap of nearly two decades, the audience was understandably bowled over. Among those who was mesmerised by Runa’s magic was Lok Sabha Speaker Somnath Chatterjee, who sat through the entire programme, organised jointly by the Indian Council of Cultural Relations and the Indian Women’s Press Corps. In fact, Chatterjee enjoyed her show so much that he promptly invited her to perform in his constituency, Bolpur, for the cultural programme which is held there every year.
Women secretaries All his Cabinet colleagues are clearly envious of Mani Shankar Aiyar, who heads the ministries of panchayati raj and youth and sports affairs, as well as the department of the North-East region. Of the three portfolios that he handles, two are headed by women secretaries. Aiyar’s friends are now watching closely to see if he goes for a hat-trick and gets a woman secretary to head the third ministry under this charge. ————— Contributed by Anita Katyal, Prashant Sood and Rajeev Sharma |
| HOME PAGE | |
Punjab | Haryana | Jammu & Kashmir |
Himachal Pradesh | Regional Briefs |
Nation | Opinions | | Business | Sports | World | Mailbag | Chandigarh | Ludhiana | Delhi | | Calendar | Weather | Archive | Subscribe | Suggestion | E-mail | |
